RE: The Amish
Professor Levinson I'm somewhat confused by your statement that even if the article is off by 50% with regard to the actual number of young women who are raped or otherwise abused by their fathers and, especially, brothers, it nevertheless states a powerful claim. Any abuse of the sort recounted in the article is horrific, but the article doesn't attempt to quantify the abuse. The closest it comes is when it says no statistics are available, but according to one Amish counselor who works with troubled church members across the Midwest, sexual abuse of children is almost a plague in some communities. Are these the actual numbers that your post refers to, or did I miss something? I'm also interested in your belief that there is a constitutional dimension to the issue. To me, it appears that the problem stems from the Amish insularity from outside influences. While that insularity stems from a religious belief, it is not the concern of the state. Perhaps a decision to require Amish children to attend public high schools would act as a check on the abuse discussed on the article, by providing children with an outsider to report it to. On the other hand, the abuse discussed in the article began at an early age, and Amish children are in school through 8th grade. Besides, I imagine the amish would choose to send their children to Amish schools, not public schools. Perhaps prosecutors are less likely to take seriously an allegation of abuse coming from an Amish child. If that was so, the article certainly serves an important corrective purpose. Again, though, this is not a constitutional concern. After all, I suspect that allegations of abuse or other crimes against a tenured law professor might sometimes be treated differently than similar allegations against an immigrant with limited english language skills. The article also mentions that some prosecutors are hesitant to prosecute Amish. I'm not sure if Amish vote (although I doubt it) but even if they don't perhaps the motivation is (as the article explains) the desire to protect a lucrative (to the State) tourist industry. That too is a political problem, not a constitutional one. It explains why police conduct drug raids in inner city communities and not at Wall Street or Hollywood holiday parties where the drug laws are no doubt violated openly and disdainfully. Your post ends by noting that we know little about the Amish or hasidim and are reduced to arguing whether the FE Clause gives them a pass from any genuine monitoring by the external legal order. I am certainly not as up on the caselaw as you are, but wonder which cases concern genuine monitoring by the external legal order. Not the KJ cases or Yoder, which are education cases. Lukumi is closer, but it concerned the applicability of a particular law, not an exemption from general monitoring by the legal order. Has there really been a Supreme Court case in the past several decades that seriously considered the question of exempting religious believers from the American legal system? Avi Schick (writing solely in my personal capacity) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/01/05 4:06 PM I strongly recommend an article by Nadya Labi, The Gentle People, in the current issue of Legal Affairs. It argues that incest is rife within Amish communities and that, basically, the community does next to nothing to control it, other than pressing the victims to forgive the perpetrators (who go on perpetrating). It is, I think, an essential corrective, as it were, to the image of the Amish portrayed in Yoder. At the very least, there seems to be no good reason to be less concerned about child abuse within the Amish community than, say, the abuse that is alleged with regard to polygamous old-Mormon communities or, indeed, pedophilia within the Catholic Church. Even if the article is off by 50% with regard to the actual number of young women who are raped or otherwise abused by their fathers and, especially, brothers, it nevertheless states a powerful claim. One of its central points is the practical inability of the formal legal system to do much about this, inasmuch as some prosecutors treat the perpetrators like football players in Virginia (i.e., there's a lot of turning the eye away); more seriouis, perhaps, is the very strong code within the Amish community that effectively prevents going to law to resolve such problems. The only effective remedy appears to be physically running away, by young women who, of course, have received nothing that could possibly count as an education adequate to allow them to flourish in what is disdainfully termed, by the Amish, the English society. No doubt there are many wonderful people among the Amish, though, of course, I suspect that most of us have never met anyone who actually lives within that community, just as most of us have never had the pleasure of meeting a Satmar Hasid from Kiryat Joel. We are ultimately reduced to a version of
Re: The Amish
I don't want to answer Sandy, but my sense of the constitutional issue is this: Yoder was in part a result of C.J. Burger's assertions that the Amish were a quaint, quite, productive historical artifact that had survived into the 20th century and they needed to be left alone so they could prosper and remain quaint. The opinion ignored Douglas's point that maybe the children wanted to go to school and were being denied a shot at a better, or different, life by their parents who wanted to prevent their children from being exposed to the "real" world, but in doing so were also denying their children the chance of ever competing in the real world. The justification for all this was the Amish are self-contained, law abiding, never harm anyone, and are wonderful and should be allowed to flourish in their own little world, free from the corrupting influence of algebra, geometry, French or Spanish classes, advanced American history, high school economics, biology, chemistry, physics, and most of all, meeting and socializing with children their own age who are not like them. The article Sandy recommends strongly suggests that Burger's view of the Amish was quite wrong; they are not perfect, or saints, or better than anyone else, and the children might actually benefit from being in school and getting out of homes that are abuse, at least for part of the day. Paul Finkelman -- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, OK 74104-3189 918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Avi Schick wrote: Professor Levinson I'm somewhat confused by your statement that "even if the article is off by 50% with regard to the actual number of young women who are raped or otherwise abused by their fathers and, especially, brothers, it nevertheless states a powerful claim." Any abuse of the sort recounted in the article is horrific, but the article doesn't attempt to quantify the abuse. The closest it comes is when it says" "no statistics are available, but according to one Amish counselor who works with troubled church members across the Midwest, sexual abuse of children is "almost a plague in some communities." Are these the "actual numbers" that your post refers to, or did I miss something? I'm also interested in your belief that there is a constitutional dimension to the issue. To me, it appears that the problem stems from the Amish insularity from outside influences. While that insularity stems from a religious belief, it is not the concern of the state. Perhaps a decision to require Amish children to attend public high schools would act as a check on the abuse discussed on the article, by providing children with an outsider to report it to. On the other hand, the abuse discussed in the article began at an early age, and Amish children are in school through 8th grade. Besides, I imagine the amish would choose to send their children to Amish schools, not public schools. Perhaps prosecutors are less likely to take seriously an allegation of abuse coming from an Amish child. If that was so, the article certainly serves an important corrective purpose. Again, though, this is not a constitutional concern. After all, I suspect that allegations of abuse or other crimes against a tenured law professor might sometimes be treated differently than similar allegations against an immigrant with limited english language skills. The article also mentions that some prosecutors are hesitant to prosecute Amish. I'm not sure if Amish vote (although I doubt it) but even if they don't perhaps the motivation is (as the article explains) the desire to protect a lucrative (to the State) tourist industry. That too is a political problem, not a constitutional one. It explains why police conduct drug raids in inner city communities and not at Wall Street or Hollywood holiday parties where the drug laws are no doubt violated openly and disdainfully. Your post ends by noting that we know little about the Amish or hasidim and are reduced to arguing "whether the FE Clause gives them a pass from any genuine monitoring by the "external" legal order." I am certainly not as up on the caselaw as you are, but wonder which cases concern "genuine monitoring by the "external" legal order." Not the KJ cases or Yoder, which are education cases. Lukumi is closer, but it concerned the applicability of a particular law, not an exemption from "general monitoring" by the "legal order." Has there really been a Supreme Court case in the past several decades that seriously considered the question of exempting religious believers from the American legal system? Avi Schick (writing solely in my personal capacity) [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/01/05 4:06 PM I strongly recommend an article by Nadya Labi, "The Gentle People," in the current issue of Legal Affairs. It argues that incest is
RE: The Amish
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Avi Schick Avi Shick raises the following questions: I'm somewhat confused by your statement that even if the article is off by 50% with regard to the actual number of young women who are raped or otherwise abused by their fathers and, especially, brothers, it nevertheless states a powerful claim. Any abuse of the sort recounted in the article is horrific, but the article doesn't attempt to quantify the abuse. The closest it comes is when it says no statistics are available, but according to one Amish counselor who works with troubled church members across the Midwest, sexual abuse of children is almost a plague in some communities. Are these the actual numbers that your post refers to, or did I miss something? ___ I was taking the term almost a plague as suggesting that the number is significant. I have no idea, and I don't think the author has any idea, what the actual numbers are. There is, of course, some risk that she is widely off the mark, as is often (but, alas, not always) the case with allegations of child abuse. I'm also interested in your belief that there is a constitutional dimension to the issue. To me, it appears that the problem stems from the Amish insularity from outside influences. While that insularity stems from a religious belief, it is not the concern of the state. Perhaps a decision to require Amish children to attend public high schools would act as a check on the abuse discussed on the article, by providing children with an outsider to report it to. On the other hand, the abuse discussed in the article began at an early age, and Amish children are in school through 8th grade. Besides, I imagine the amish would choose to send their children to Amish schools, not public schools. Perhaps prosecutors are less likely to take seriously an allegation of abuse coming from an Amish child. If that was so, the article certainly serves an important corrective purpose. Again, though, this is not a constitutional concern. After all, I suspect that allegations of abuse or other crimes against a tenured law professor might sometimes be treated differently than similar allegations against an immigrant with limited english language skills. I concur with almost everything that Paul Finkelman wrote in his posting. The constitutional dimension involves the irenic portrayal of the Amish in Yoder. Cases consist of fact statements (and assumptions, whether warranted or unwarranted, about the facts), together with the ostensibly legal conclusions that follow from them. When Burger distinguishes the (good) Amish from the (bad) hippy communities influenced by Thoreau, he is not, I think, merely stating that religious claims necessarily trump (which is patently false), but also telling the reader that the fine, law-abiding Amish are of no threat to the bourgeois values that he and his presumptive readers, at least in their idealized self-conceptions, cherish. Does anyone think that the case would have come out the same way if brough, say, by a group of old-Mormon polygamists? The article also mentions that some prosecutors are hesitant to prosecute Amish. I'm not sure if Amish vote (although I doubt it) ___ The Amish simply want to be left alone. I believe they view outside life as irredeemably corrupt and have no interest in participating in it in any way. This might, incidentally, be contrasted with the Satmar Hasids, who most definitely are remarkably skilled politicians. but even if they don't perhaps the motivation is (as the article explains) the desire to protect a lucrative (to the State) tourist industry. That too is a political problem, not a constitutional one. It explains why police conduct drug raids in inner city communities and not at Wall Street or Hollywood holiday parties where the drug laws are no doubt violated openly and disdainfully. _ It all depends what one means by constitutional problems. After all, one can take a Law Day view of the rights Americans have, including citation to many inspiring Supreme Court opinions or, in contrast, look at the law-in-action and then try to ask why it is that so many ostensible constitutional rights are quite hollow. I.e., does a constitution really-and-truly constitute, or does it, at times, serve as a kind of PR device by which elites profess commitments to values that they do not in fact intend to enforce across the board? Your post ends by noting that we know little about the Amish or hasidim and are reduced to arguing whether the FE Clause gives them a pass from any genuine monitoring by the external legal order. I am certainly not as up on the caselaw as you are, but wonder which cases concern genuine monitoring by the external legal order. Not the KJ cases or Yoder, which are
Re: The Amish
I thought about the possibility that the numbers were over/under reported as I listened to reports this last week on the death toll from the tsunamis following the Christmas evening earthquake. Sometime around Monday, I started to hear stories that as many as 1/3 of those killed were children. A few anchors mentioned how particularly distressing and sad it was to learn that death had such a disparate impact among the young. Today, I listened as Carol Bellamy (sp?) of UNICEF explained the numbers further. From her statements, it became clear that the 1/3 number was simply a population ration extrapolation: about 1/3 of the population of the countries affected consists of children. If you aim with devasting breadth a disaster of biblical (or epic) proportions at such countries, the toll will, in most circumstances, fall in about the same proportion to the population at large. Certain artificial circumstances alter the outcome: have a group of terrorists take over a school, and the impact will, in fact, actually be disproportionately harsh to children. At the end of it all, it reminded me to take such reports with a well-deserved caution. That is not to say that any such incident, taken in isolation, or in its known quantities, is not horrible. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: The Amish
Professor Levinson Thank you for your clarifications.I still don't see the constitutional dimension that is so clearly visible to you and Professor Finkelman. I guess one way to get at the question is whether you think that the result in Yoder should have been different because of the conduct described in the Legal Affairs article? Or, how about the Kiryas Joel case. You contrast the Amish with the Satmar Hasids, who most definitely are remarkably skilled politicians. Do you think that your opinion of the political streength of the Satmars is relecant to the decision in the Kiryas Joel case? In other words, if the school district was drawn in a way that benefitted Amish, who you believe are not political, do you think there is less of an establishment concern? In the end, aren't you just substituing your opinions, beliefs, biases, experiances, etc for those of another - such as C.J. Burger? [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1/2/2005 3:44:46 PM -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Avi Schick Avi Shick raises the following questions: I'm somewhat confused by your statement that even if the article is off by 50% with regard to the actual number of young women who are raped or otherwise abused by their fathers and, especially, brothers, it nevertheless states a powerful claim. Any abuse of the sort recounted in the article is horrific, but the article doesn't attempt to quantify the abuse. The closest it comes is when it says no statistics are available, but according to one Amish counselor who works with troubled church members across the Midwest, sexual abuse of children is almost a plague in some communities. Are these the actual numbers that your post refers to, or did I miss something? ___ I was taking the term almost a plague as suggesting that the number is significant. I have no idea, and I don't think the author has any idea, what the actual numbers are. There is, of course, some risk that she is widely off the mark, as is often (but, alas, not always) the case with allegations of child abuse. I'm also interested in your belief that there is a constitutional dimension to the issue. To me, it appears that the problem stems from the Amish insularity from outside influences. While that insularity stems from a religious belief, it is not the concern of the state. Perhaps a decision to require Amish children to attend public high schools would act as a check on the abuse discussed on the article, by providing children with an outsider to report it to. On the other hand, the abuse discussed in the article began at an early age, and Amish children are in school through 8th grade. Besides, I imagine the amish would choose to send their children to Amish schools, not public schools. Perhaps prosecutors are less likely to take seriously an allegation of abuse coming from an Amish child. If that was so, the article certainly serves an important corrective purpose. Again, though, this is not a constitutional concern. After all, I suspect that allegations of abuse or other crimes against a tenured law professor might sometimes be treated differently than similar allegations against an immigrant with limited english language skills. I concur with almost everything that Paul Finkelman wrote in his posting. The constitutional dimension involves the irenic portrayal of the Amish in Yoder. Cases consist of fact statements (and assumptions, whether warranted or unwarranted, about the facts), together with the ostensibly legal conclusions that follow from them. When Burger distinguishes the (good) Amish from the (bad) hippy communities influenced by Thoreau, he is not, I think, merely stating that religious claims necessarily trump (which is patently false), but also telling the reader that the fine, law-abiding Amish are of no threat to the bourgeois values that he and his presumptive readers, at least in their idealized self-conceptions, cherish. Does anyone think that the case would have come out the same way if brough, say, by a group of old-Mormon polygamists? The article also mentions that some prosecutors are hesitant to prosecute Amish. I'm not sure if Amish vote (although I doubt it) ___ The Amish simply want to be left alone. I believe they view outside life as irredeemably corrupt and have no interest in participating in it in any way. This might, incidentally, be contrasted with the Satmar Hasids, who most definitely are remarkably skilled politicians. but even if they don't perhaps the motivation is (as the article explains) the desire to protect a lucrative (to the State) tourist industry. That too is a political problem, not a constitutional one. It explains why police conduct drug raids in inner city communities and not at Wall Street or Hollywood holiday parties where the drug laws are no doubt violated openly
Re: The Amish
Again, I speak for me, not Sandy. I think that the Court did not find Kiryas Joel very attractive litigants and their request -- for state funds for their own school district -- seemed such an obvious violation of the establishment clause, while the Amish were just asking to be exempt from the truancy laws, and did seem attractive to Burger. The Amish did not ask for a school district. Paul Finkelman Avi Schick wrote: Professor Levinson Thank you for your clarifications.I still don't see the constitutional dimension that is so clearly visible to you and Professor Finkelman. I guess one way to get at the question is whether you think that the result in Yoder should have been different because of the conduct described in the Legal Affairs article? Or, how about the Kiryas Joel case. You contrast the Amish with "the Satmar Hasids, who most definitely are remarkably skilled politicians." Do you think that your opinion of the political streength of the Satmars is relecant to the decision in the Kiryas Joel case? In other words, if the school district was drawn in a way that benefitted Amish, who you believe are not political, do you think there is less of an establishment concern? In the end, aren't you just substituing your opinions, beliefs, biases, experiances, etc for those of another - such as C.J. Burger? [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1/2/2005 3:44:46 PM -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Avi Schick Avi Shick raises the following questions: I'm somewhat confused by your statement that "even if the article is off by 50% with regard to the actual number of young women who are raped or otherwise abused by their fathers and, especially, brothers, it nevertheless states a powerful claim." Any abuse of the sort recounted in the article is horrific, but the article doesn't attempt to quantify the abuse. The closest it comes is when it says" "no statistics are available, but according to one Amish counselor who works with troubled church members across the Midwest, sexual abuse of children is "almost a plague in some communities." Are these the "actual numbers" that your post refers to, or did I miss something? ___ I was taking the term "almost a plague" as suggesting that the number is significant. I have no idea, and I don't think the author has any idea, what the "actual numbers" are. There is, of course, some risk that she is widely off the mark, as is often (but, alas, not always) the case with allegations of child abuse. I'm also interested in your belief that there is a constitutional dimension to the issue. To me, it appears that the problem stems from the Amish insularity from outside influences. While that insularity stems from a religious belief, it is not the concern of the state. Perhaps a decision to require Amish children to attend public high schools would act as a check on the abuse discussed on the article, by providing children with an outsider to report it to. On the other hand, the abuse discussed in the article began at an early age, and Amish children are in school through 8th grade. Besides, I imagine the amish would choose to send their children to Amish schools, not public schools. Perhaps prosecutors are less likely to take seriously an allegation of abuse coming from an Amish child. If that was so, the article certainly serves an important corrective purpose. Again, though, this is not a constitutional concern. After all, I suspect that allegations of abuse or other crimes against a tenured law professor might sometimes be treated differently than similar allegations against an immigrant with limited english language skills. I concur with almost everything that Paul Finkelman wrote in his posting. The "constitutional dimension" involves the irenic portrayal of the Amish in Yoder. Cases consist of "fact statements" (and assumptions, whether warranted or unwarranted, about the facts), together with the ostensibly legal conclusions that follow from them. When Burger distinguishes the (good) Amish from the (bad) hippy communities influenced by Thoreau, he is not, I think, merely stating that religious claims necessarily trump (which is patently false), but also telling the reader that the fine, law-abiding Amish are of no threat to the bourgeois values that he and his presumptive readers, at least in their idealized self-conceptions, cherish. Does anyone think that the case would have come out the same way if brough, say, by a group of "old-Mormon" polygamists? The article also mentions that some prosecutors are hesitant to prosecute Amish. I'm not sure if Amish vote (although I doubt it) ___ The Amish simply want to be left alone. I believe they view outside life as irredeemably corrupt and have no interest in participating in it in
Re: The Amish
I doubt Yoder comes out the same today -- even with this Court. The advent of home schooling to state-set standards changes things substantially, I think. We now generally accept that the state may set certain standards for education up to a certain age -- though we do allow drop-outs -- and that a state may require attendance up to a certain age -- you can't drop out until then. This was true in the time of Yoder, as well, but we have 30 years more experience and thought now, and some demystification of the myth of the cute quaint Amish as utterly positive and benign, of which the article cited by Sandy is just another example. Accommodation is what is required; not exemption from participation in society in a number of compulsory ways, including taxes and becoming educated. Steve -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/ If we are to receive full service from government, the universities must give us trained [people]. That means a constant reorientation of university instruction and research not for the mere purpose of increasing technical proficiency but for the purpose of keeping abreast with social and economic change. . . . Government is no better than its [people]. William O. Douglas ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: The Amish
Title: RE: The Amish Avi Shick writes: I guess one way to get at the question is whether you think that the result in Yoder should have been different because of theconduct described in the Legal Affairs article? _ I have always found the Yoder case difficult precisely because of the considerations raised in the Douglas dissent. The case is really a struggle over who gets to mold the child, the parents or the state. There is no real consideration for the autonomy interests of the child him/herself. My main point has been "empirical," so to speak: If the Amish were generally viewed in the terms of the Legal Affairs article, I think that Yoder would have come out differently. As to whether I would prefer the different outcome, I'm still torn inasmuch as I do believe that cultural pluralism is an important value in a "multi-cultural society," which means allowing groups that I find quite repugnant in some ways to flourish. Or, how about the Kiryas Joel case. You contrast the Amish with "the Satmar Hasids, who most definitely are remarkably skilled politicians." Do you think that your opinion of the political streength of the Satmarsis relecant to the decision in the Kiryas Joel case? In other words, if the school district was drawn in a way that benefitted Amish, who you believe are not political, do you think there is less of an establishment concern? I find Kiryas Joel a difficult case also. I'm not convinced that it violated the Establishment Clause, at least if one accepts at face value the assurances that the schools themselves had no religious content. I'm not inclined to view the actuality of Satmar political influence as constitutionally relevant. Again, I was making more of an empirical observation than a normative one. In the end, aren't you just substituing your opinions, beliefs, biases, experiances, etc for those of another - such as C.J. Burger?___ Of course, but what else exactly could I be doing? sandy levinson ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: The Amish
I strongly recommend an article by Nadya Labi, "The Gentle People," in the current issue of Legal Affairs. It argues that incest is rife within Amish communities and that, basically, the community does next to nothing to control it, other than pressing the victims to "forgive" the perpetrators (who go on perpetrating). It is, I think, an essential "corrective," as it were, to the image of the Amish portrayed in Yoder. At the very least, there seems to be no good reason to be less concerned about child abuse within the Amish community than, say, the abuse that is alleged with regard to polygamous "old-Mormon" communities or, indeed, pedophilia within the Catholic Church. Even if the article is off by 50% with regard to the actual number of young women who are raped or otherwise abusedby their fathers and, especially,brothers, it nevertheless states a powerful claim. One of its central points is the practical inability of the formal legal system to do much about this, inasmuch as some prosecutors treat the perpetrators like football players in Virginia (i.e., there's a lot of turning the eye away); more seriouis, perhaps, is the very strong code within the Amish community that effectively prevents "going to law" to resolve such problems. The only effective remedy appears to be physically running away, by young women who, of course, have received nothing that could possibly count as an education adequate to allow them to flourish in what is disdainfully termed, by the Amish, the "English" society. No doubt there are many wonderful people among the Amish, though, of course, I suspect that most of us have never met anyone who actually lives within that community, just as most of us have never had the pleasure of meeting a Satmar Hasid from Kiryat Joel. We are ultimately reduced to a version of "making up stories" about how they actually live their lives and (mis)treat their children and whether the FE Clause gives them a pass from any genuine monitoring by the "external" legal order. A Happy New Year to all! sandy ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: The Amish
A link to the Labi article: http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/January-February-2005/feature_labi_janfeb05.html - Original Message - From: Sanford Levinson To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 4:06 PM Subject: RE: The Amish I strongly recommend an article by Nadya Labi, "The Gentle People," in the current issue of Legal Affairs. It argues that incest is rife within Amish communities and that, basically, the community does next to nothing to control it, other than pressing the victims to "forgive" the perpetrators (who go on perpetrating). It is, I think, an essential "corrective," as it were, to the image of the Amish portrayed in Yoder. At the very least, there seems to be no good reason to be less concerned about child abuse within the Amish community than, say, the abuse that is alleged with regard to polygamous "old-Mormon" communities or, indeed, pedophilia within the Catholic Church. Even if the article is off by 50% with regard to the actual number of young women who are raped or otherwise abusedby their fathers and, especially,brothers, it nevertheless states a powerful claim. One of its central points is the practical inability of the formal legal system to do much about this, inasmuch as some prosecutors treat the perpetrators like football players in Virginia (i.e., there's a lot of turning the eye away); more seriouis, perhaps, is the very strong code within the Amish community that effectively prevents "going to law" to resolve such problems. The only effective remedy appears to be physically running away, by young women who, of course, have received nothing that could possibly count as an education adequate to allow them to flourish in what is disdainfully termed, by the Amish, the "English" society. No doubt there are many wonderful people among the Amish, though, of course, I suspect that most of us have never met anyone who actually lives within that community, just as most of us have never had the pleasure of meeting a Satmar Hasid from Kiryat Joel. We are ultimately reduced to a version of "making up stories" about how they actually live their lives and (mis)treat their children and whether the FE Clause gives them a pass from any genuine monitoring by the "external" legal order. A Happy New Year to all! sandy ___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
